Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 28, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

YOUR DAILY DOZEN....I've been pretty consistently negative about George Lakoff and his framing crusade for the past couple of years, so let me turn the tables and recommend this short piece posted a couple of days ago at Alternet, "12 Traps That Keep Progressives From Winning." It's pretty good.

Kevin Drum 12:36 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (112)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Progressives, schmogressives. I'm a liberal and damn proud of it. We might start by not running scared from that label.

Posted by: Wonderin on September 28, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

You've also misunderstood him for the past couple of years.

Have you ever actually read his theoretical work, like "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things"?

Try it.

Posted by: Stumbleblow on September 28, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Evolutionism"

"Phonics"

"Islamofascism"

Hahahahahahahahahaha...gasp....hahahahahahahahhaha

Thank the Good Lord that I'm not a conservative member of the Republic Party

Posted by: Wonderin on September 28, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Me think all this applies to GWB to a W.

Ignores polls: that's what he says.

Avoid being rational. Of course.

Refuses to talk straight.

Refuses to be centrist.

Insists Republican voters are stupid: bases his campaigns on telling them half truths and outright lies.

Refuses to react to things and to the reality of the fuckups of his own making.

Keeps spinning. Freedom. Liberty. 9/11.

Keeps blaming the media. Catapults the propganda.

Refuses to talk straight.

Sounds like a winning strategy based upon empirical evidence.

Posted by: gregor on September 28, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Stumbleblow: Possibly, but I've now read two of his books and probably half a dozen interviews and magazine pieces by and about him. If the only way to understand Lakoff is to read everything he's ever written, then an awful lot of people are going to misunderstand him.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on September 28, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think we have a bullshitter on the order of Reagan in our camp. The closest is probably Dean, but he is so much more honest and intelligent than Ronnie I doubt he could pull it off, and I seriously doubt he would want to.

Posted by: Ace Franze, specific lunatic on September 28, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

One misunderstanding, common among progressive circles, is that the Reagan and George W. Bush elections were about "personality" rather than anything substantive.

I couldnt disagree more. Look at the pairings over the last 30 years:

Carter v Ford
Reagan v Carter
Reagan v Mondale
Bush v Dukakis
Clinton v Bush
Clinton v Dole
Bush v Gore
Bush v Kerry

Tell me that its not about personality. For better of for worse, substance give you 30% of your hard core support. The rest shows up if you can tell a joke, smile a lot, and claim that you are Gods own.

The populist bull pin, unfortunately, is filled with humorless slugs.


Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Lakoff seems to believe that if you just appear to have values, people will vote for you, regardless of whether they agree with them.

Hogwash.

People voted for Reagan because they agreed with his values: militarism, cut taxes, cut welfare.

They don't vote Democratic because they have been persuaded Democrats fight terrorists by singing Kumbaya.

Posted by: tyronen on September 28, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

And, tyronen, the strawman is the easiest to mock, isn't he?

Posted by: Ace Franze, specific lunatic on September 28, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Seriously, who are those 12 things news for? The Beltway pundits? DailyKos has been saying this for YEARS. Literally YEARS.

Posted by: MNPundit on September 28, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie Lawrence posting as "Thomas1" wrote: "13. Throwing Democrats like Lieberman overboard."

Lieberman is not a progressive. Lamont is a progressive. In that primary election, the Democratic voters of Connecticut made their decision, and a majority of them chose Lamont, and the progressives did indeed win. So your comment is just more of the pathetically inane drivel that, along with lies, makes up the entire content of everything you've ever posted here.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie posting as "Thomas1" wrote: "Kevin has resorted to deleting posts he disagrees with."

If Kevin would adopt a policy of deleting posts by pathological liars that contain nothing but inane drivel, all of your posts would immediately disappear.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe one perspective Lakoff is inferring, and liberals should listen to, is: When it comes to campaigning, Republicans think is better to win that to be right.
Because once you're in office, then you can do what it is you believe is right (regardless of whether is actually right, ie. GWB).
Dems campaigning stragedy is be rational and right first, then maybe you'll win. 2000 & 2004 proved us wrong.
Why not take a cue for Rove and beat him at his own game, then when you win, you can be right.

Posted by: cboas on September 28, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

13. Throwing Democrats like Lieberman overboard.

Quite the opposite. In the long run we will be better w/o people like JOEmentum.

Look, I am gay, but even I couldnt swallow the way Leiberman unabashedly bent over and took GWBs throbbing, if inadequate, man member. It was just too gross and did not help the party or the country.

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

This guy Thomas1 is a psycho.

Posted by: gregor on September 28, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK
Lakoff seems to believe that if you just appear to have values, people will vote for you, regardless of whether they agree with them.

All other things being equal, the perception that a candidate acts based on consistent "moral" (as opposed to simply self-advancing) values is probably a plus in many cases even where those values aren't all ones the voter agrees with; it creates a set of expectations including a limit on the bad policy that will be pursued, whereas the perception that a candidate acts without values as a weathervane offers no such perceived limit and boundaries.

So, while I'd say the mere perception that "Candidate X acts from values" isn't enough to guarantee that a voter will vote for candidate X in most cases, its a big plus, and not only in cases where the voter shares the values they see the candidate as having.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

This leiberman v lamont bullshit is what proves Lakoff right.
Dems are to busy proving each other "less correct" (ie Lamont is "more correct" than Leiberman) before the even shit hits the fans.
Let leiberman go, and solidify the liberal base.
Talk values, not who's more correct.
Otherwise GOP wins/cheats again

Posted by: cboas on September 28, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Lakoff:

"How can we fool Americans into voting for leftists?"

Posted by: fizbin on September 28, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK
Interesting. Kevin has resorted to deleting posts he disagrees with.

Many posts Kevin disagrees with are still here. If Kevin is deleting posts, I suspect it is not because he disagrees with them.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Nope, Psycho is a different movie!

Yeah gregor, think Rain Man.

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

On the topic of deleting posts: Political Animal is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly...[more Matrix blather]


Thomas1, I have to say that this post was positively sublime in its stupidity. Congrats.

Posted by: weq on September 28, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Don't know much about Lakoff, but he makes a number of good points. Dems really need to ask themselves why poor, white Southerners, who have taken it up the rump from the neoconservatives since Nixon, always seem to vote for them and get anally raped a little harder and deeper.

Abortion, giving blacks the votes and gun rights are the only issues that resonate with tobaccy-chewin' rednecks.

Posted by: A Cynic's Cynic on September 28, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

"How can we fool Americans into voting for leftists?"
fizbib- well...yeah. duh.
If the alternative is another GOP candidate in the White House, and that's what it takes?
Then yes, we need to fool people. I am tired dems being martyrded losers.

Posted by: cboas on September 28, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

T1, first, don't use we.

We do not belong to the same party; not physically, not mentally, and sure as hell not morally.

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

In my opinion, Lakoff doesn't have all the answers but he is always thought-provoking. Here's another piece by Lakoff that is worth reading, excerpted from his book Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision:

Biconceptualism
By George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute
September 28, 2006
www.truthout.org

Excerpt:

When pundits talk about "moderates," or "the center," or "centrists," what exactly are they talking about? And why does the answer matter?

There is no single, consistent worldview or set of ideas that characterizes any of these terms. The terms instead refer to what we have called "biconceptuals," people who have both conservative (strict) and progressive (nurturant) worldviews, but apply them in different domains of life. The question is, which worldview will they apply in voting?

A given political worldview can be activated by language. Thus, conservatives talk to "the center" the same way they talk to their base. The idea is to use conservative language to activate the conservative worldview in the brains of such voters. Progressives should be doing the same, talking to the center the same way they talk to their base. The worst mistake they can make is to "move to the right" on the rationale that "that's where the voters are."

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Lakoff -

8. The "Misunderestimating" Trap

Too many progressives think that people who vote conservative are just stupid, especially those who vote against their economic self-interest. Progressives believe that we only have to tell them the real economic facts, and they will change the way they vote. The reality is that those who vote conservative have their reasons and we had better understand them. Conservative populism is cultural -- not economic -- in nature. Conservative populists see themselves as oppressed by elitist liberals who look down their noses at them, when they are just ordinary, moral, right-thinking folks. They see liberals as trying to impose an immoral "political correctness" on them, and they are angry about it.

Progressives also paint conservative leaders as incompetent and not very smart, based on a misunderstanding of the conservative agenda. This results from looking at conservative goals through progressive values. Looking at conservative goals through conservative values yields insight and shows just how effective conservatives really are.

Ace Franze-

I don't think we have a bullshitter on the order of Reagan in our camp. The closest is probably Dean, but he is so much more honest and intelligent than Ronnie I doubt he could pull it off, and I seriously doubt he would want to.

... and the sad thing is the Ace probably doesn't realize he just provided a great big data point which speaks very favorably toward Lakoff's work.

Posted by: John Hansen on September 28, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK
Every post Kevin disagreed with before 12:57 AM was deleted, Chris.

This thread started at 12:36 PM, and the second comment still in it (from 12:44PM) is one to which Kevin posted a mild disagreement at 12:57PM, so your comment seems to be nonsense as written, and still wrong if the most obvious "correction" (AM->PM) is made.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Talk to me about the "long run" when we win the Senate 51 to 49, but then Lieberman caucuses with the GOP to give them control.

T1,

Even if that were to happen, I would few that as a small price to pay casting out the demon that is Lieberman. An acceptable short term cost, morally necessary.

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Yes: Progressives fall into all 12 of these traps.
But there are even more.

#14. The we can fight a war on terrorism while shackled to a Anti-American, Moral Equivalent, Anti-Military, Pro-U.N., reactionary Left Trap.

#15. We can appeal to Christians while shackled to the Gestating children in their Mothers wombs have no moral weight whatsoever, All Family Forms are inherently equal, God is a delusion of small minds Trap

Posted by: Fitz on September 28, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Log Cabin Republicans are cowards, stupidly believing Republicans lies and selling their souls for a tax cut.

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

That the sheeple put a nebulous concept like "values" ahead of policy is the most discouraging reality I can think of. Here's my idea re "family values: - I'll value mine, and you value yours and we'll leave one another the hell alone about it.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

I now understand why Thomas opposes health care being "forced" on him.

Five minutes alone with his delusions of grandeur, multiple personalities, pathological lying, and intermittent violent outbursts, and any therapist is going to recommend he be hospitalized in a mental facility.

Posted by: ed on September 28, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK
P.S. Chris -- fine, Kevin deleted posts he had "severe" disagreements with -- happy now?

Oh, I'm plenty happy, but I haven't seen anything from you to make me believe that Kevin deleted any posts, ever, in this thread or elsewhere, simply because he disagreed with them, no matter how strongly.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK
Talk to me about the "long run" when we win the Senate 51 to 49, but then Lieberman caucuses with the GOP to give them control.

If "we", as in Democratic candidates, win the Senate 51-49, that will mean that (not counting Independent candidate Lieberman) there are 51 Democrats in the Senate, and how Lieberman caucuses won't matter much to anyone but Lieberman.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Or maybe we will have a 50-50 senate, giving neither party cloture, and haffee (assuming he wins) caucuses with the Democrats. There is a possibility to consider, and I admit a certain bit of glee at the notion.)

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK
LOL, Chris -- of course you didn't "see" them, because they were, how do you say it? DELETED!!!!!

The only thing I said I didn't see was any reason to believe your claim that Kevin deleted posts because he disagreed with them. Are you claiming now that you posted such an argument and Kevin deleted that, as well? And, if so, why should we believe that?

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Lakoff -

8. The "Misunderestimating" Trap

Too many progressives think that people who vote conservative are just stupid, especially those who vote against their economic self-interest. Progressives believe that we only have to tell them the real economic facts, and they will change the way they vote. The reality is that those who vote conservative have their reasons and we had better understand them. Conservative populism is cultural -- not economic -- in nature. Conservative populists see themselves as oppressed by elitist liberals who look down their noses at them, when they are just ordinary, moral, right-thinking folks. They see liberals as trying to impose an immoral "political correctness" on them, and they are angry about it.

Progressives also paint conservative leaders as incompetent and not very smart, based on a misunderstanding of the conservative agenda. This results from looking at conservative goals through progressive values. Looking at conservative goals through conservative values yields insight and shows just how effective conservatives really are.


Keith G. --

Log Cabin Republicans are cowards, stupidly believing Republicans lies and selling their souls for a tax cut.

Keith and Ace -- Don't you realize that your comments simply serve to verify Lakoff's point number 8. Why don't you start with the assumption that Republicans are not stupid, vote consistent with their values, and then maybe you can participate in meaningful discussion instead of just throwing out epithets.

Posted by: John Hansen on September 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Chaffee. Sorry for all the typos of late - brace comes off next week.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Oh but Tommy Boy, I am a democrat, unlike you.
You claim to be a member of the oldest political party in American, but I do not believe that wet dream. I got my start as an eighteen yr old helping to organize college campuses for Jimmy Carter (one of the proudest moments of my life).

After getting my degree in polit. sci., I worked for many more democrat campaigns. I have never met anyone who is as hateful of all things Democratic as you.

You claim to be a Democrat, but I think it just a masturbation fantasy.

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

this violent outburst -

Dear Moronic Communist Fuck,

I don't give a rat's shit about the spirit of civility and respect and cooperation anymore. My mission in life is to send every one of you to Gitmo.

P.S. Go FUCK yourself in the meantime!

Posted by: the individual who posts as Cheney and Thomas on March 9, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: ed on September 28, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

"and the sad thing is the Ace probably doesn't realize he just provided a great big data point which speaks very favorably toward Lakoff's work."

Bull, and if you'll pardon me, shit. First you'd have to buy Lakoff's "data point" to begin with. Lakoff is a little too squashy/mushy for my liking. I read "Don't think of the elephant" and agree with a good deal of it, but I refuse appear powerless by rolling over for a theology/ideology I find offensive just by existing.

"they are just ordinary, moral, right-thinking folks. "

See, the problem is that they're not any of those things. I don't have to give equal time, or even consider the arguments of some flat-earth, kill-all-the-queers-and-feminazis wingnut. And if their widdow feewings is hurted when their gross ignorance is pointed out to them - too freaking bad.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel on September 28, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

It sounds like the same old George Lakoff thing. Perhaps you might want to tell us what you found so interesting.

Posted by: shreeharsh on September 28, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

John, I did not say all Repubs are stupid.

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK
Gawd, you are truly a pain, Chris. I obviously cannot argue with you about posts that were deleted.

Well, you could recount what within and without the content of the posts justified your conclusion that Kevin disagreed with them, and that that is why he deleted them.

But maybe you just meant that you obviously can't argue for your position because its got nothing behind it.

Also, I was counting "REGISTERED INDEPENDENT" Jeffords as "we" too, and you didn't flip out over that, did you?

That assumption was less obvious.

But, if you want to get all hyper-technical, here's the exact breakdown which gives Lieberman tremendous leverage:

Republican -- 49 Senators

Democrats -- 48 Senators

Independents -- 2 Senators

Don't you mean D-49, R-48, I-2?

Otherwise, presuming Jeffords continues to caucus with the Democrats, you are talking about Lieberman holding the balance between a 50-50 split the Democrats lose to the VPs tie-breaking vote and a 49-51 split that they lose outright.

At any rate, nothing stops him from wielding the same leverage over both caucuses with a threat/offer to flip if he ran as a Democrat, anyway.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Lakoff's list sounds like a criticism of most of what goes on at the Wash. Monthly blog. Lists of policies, lists of specific problems with them, charts, graphs, etc.

How about expressing some true feelings about where Bush is leading us? Like towards totalitarianism? That's what trying US citizens before military tribunals is. If it applies to terrorism, it can apply to other things as well.

Posted by: polthereal on September 28, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

So Thomas, you get a pony for something you did 46 years ago. I still have to doubt your verasity when you attack almostly everything the modern democratic stands for. Why claim to hang with people whose actions you distain so much?

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Mrs. Peel: "I don't have to give equal time, or even consider the arguments of some flat-earth, kill-all-the-queers-and-feminazis wingnut."

No one said you did. But perhaps part of the problem is that you believe that anyone who has a moderate viewpoint on a minor issue is some sort of wingnut. Is the person who believes cutting taxes is good an extremist? Perhaps if he's George Bush. But perhaps not if he's Joe Schmoe.

People who go to church can and do vote Democrat. People who favor parental notification for abortion can and do vote Democrat. People who support and appreciate the military can and do vote Democrat. Perhaps people who believe all of these things won't ever come close to being a Democrat, but then again, that's a small segment of the population.

Let's try to make that distinction and rise above the level of petulant three year-olds.

Posted by: polthereal on September 28, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I'm going to write a new book.

"Don't think of George Lakoff. Or the donkey he rode in on."

Or his misreading of Wirthlin. Or his belief that people voted for Reagan because he was consistent with his values, when he gave even more lip service and less actual action, by far, to the Religious Right than Bush does.

I mean, Reagan listened to his wife's astrologer and never even went to church, and Lakoff thinks he acted consistent with his articulated values? Not on social issues.

Of course, the Religious Right went along for the ride.

(Sidebar: this is another reason to have a parliamentary government. Nutbar Rel Right folks could take their frustration with the Republicans into action and form their own party, and get 3-5 percent of the vote.)

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on September 28, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Ok Thomas, I will take you at you word, for now.

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Keith and Ace -- Don't you realize that your comments simply serve to verify Lakoff's point number 8. Why don't you start with the assumption that Republicans are not stupid, vote consistent with their values, and then maybe you can participate in meaningful discussion instead of just throwing out epithets."
Posted by: John Hansen

Well, john, it is unnatural to assume that pubs are not stupid when they support a man like Bush. I have kinfolk who support him and I am sure that they are stupid in the matter.

Posted by: Ace Franze, specific lunatic on September 28, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you realize that your comments simply serve to verify Lakoff's point number 8. Why don't you start with the assumption that Republicans are not stupid, vote consistent with their values, and then maybe you can participate in meaningful discussion instead of just throwing out epithets.

Posted by: John Hansen on September 28, 2006

That is the best question in the tread. It deserves an answer. Liberals have been beaten down for the better part of 30 years. We have been demonized. We have been called names. We have been made to be ashamed of ourselves. We have fallen head over heals for the conservative frames. We have been told that we are for government waste. Over and over again we have been told that we want to give everything away. We have been told that we are communists or socialists or whatever "ists" people can come up with. One conservative hack even wrote a best seller calling us traitors. We have been beaten down and kept down.

Well liberals know they are not what they are called. They look around and see a lot of other people who are just like them. After a while when a large group of people have been unfairly attacked they tend to band together. They can only deal with the unjustified frame by concluding the people who keep knocking them down are stupid bullies. They begin to think of themselves as special. They remember the good old days when they were ascendant. They begin to view themselves as a tribe. The tribe becomes stronger and stronger. The tribe tends to bully back.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying liberals are the only victims here. Rank and file conservatives feel a victim status just like rank and file liberals. Long ago they formed into their own tribe. For many years they were beaten down by liberals who treated them like redheaded step children.

Right now in American society we have suffered so long from the bullying of both the right and the left that two tribes are rapidly emerging. Neither tribe trusts the other. Neither tribe believes the other. Both tribes have reason to think the members of the other tribe hate them. You can call these two tribes the reds and the blues. They see the world through their tribal eyes. They can see the same news and conclude the report is biased against them.

What is happening in America is something ugly. If our leaders don't stop to realize what all their demonizing is doing we are only a short step from becoming an Iraq ourselves. We need to identify with one tribe in the United States--the American tribe. We should push the conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, Red State/Blue State tribalism aside. After all the differences between us are nothing compared to the differences that separated us the last time tribalism became violent.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 28, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers: Gold star for thoughtful serious commentary. Thank you.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

John Hansen wrote: "Why don't you start with the assumption that Republicans are not stupid"

Anyone who doesn't fully understand the nature of the Bush administration and voted for Bush is stupid.

Anyone who does fully understand the nature of the Bush administration and voted for Bush is evil.

I don't assume that everyone who voted for Bush is stupid.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Progressives are best when they are not agressive.

Maybe passive agressive is sometimes okay.

But, if you understand the difference between making money from death versus peace and (real), green in all of it's connotations, then you'll comprehend the basic dichotomy our society is wrestling with today.

I am not a progressive if I choose to own a house, drive a hummer, invest in Lock-Heed Martin stocks, go to a church where individual monetary wealth is glorified.

I am one if I believe that real economic prosperity and sustainability grows from those who wage peace.

How many people think about a famous quote that goes someting like this..... to get rid of your enemy, become his friend.

Friendliness needs to be equated with liberal progressivenism, while war profiteering needs to be equated with conservative thinking.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on September 28, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

John, I did not say all Repubs are stupid.

No, but you seem to believe that, in general, those who are Log Cabin Republicans vote stupidly. You are so convinced that your view of the world is correct that you can't possibly come up with another motivation for a Log Cabin Republican voting Republican than either stupidity or complete loss of moral rectitude.

Perhaps you need to try and understand the rationale behind conservative thought. Lakoff said the weakness that progressives have is they try to analyze conservative positions from a progressive standpoint. Your conclusion from this exercise in banality is that Log Cabin Repubs are stupid, cowards.

Instead try a different tack. Log Cabin Republicans probably truly believe a world view that is different from yours. Try to put yourself for a moment in the assumptions that lead to this world viewpoint

1. Market economies benefit more people than centralized economies.
2. Large centralized government programs usually hurt more than they help a problem.
3. Some laws are needed to legislate personal morality.
...

I'm not saying you can't intellectually reject these assumptions, but imagine where your logic and intellect would take you given these assumptions.

If you follow this road, you may see that given a different world view, the Log Cabin voter is niether a coward or stupid, and given the hatred of the left that is passionately directed toward any gay that would dare to break the mold of voting Democratic, you may see them as actually pretty courageous.

Perhaps then you could join in a real debate that questioned whether the given assumptions are true or not. Simply dismissing your opponents as stupid, does not lead to good discourse.

Posted by: John Hansen on September 28, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

polthereal:
Let's try to make that distinction and rise above the level of petulant three year-olds.

You might be perceived as less of a petulant three year old if you refrained from that stupid, snide way of referring to people voting "Democrat."

It's "Democratic," my widdle wun, and "Democratic Party."

You ignorant phrasing is intended to irritate; how immature is that?

Posted by: Wonderin on September 28, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

tyronen wrote "Lakoff seems to believe that if you just appear to have values, people will vote for you, regardless of whether they agree with them. Hogwash." But tyronen, Lakoff doesn't say that at all. Lakoff says not that progressives need to appear to have values, but that progressives need to articulate their values. Because conservatives — or so-called conservatives — have spent the last 30 years articulating their values, conservatives are much more aware than progressives of what their own values are. So, progressives need to pause and reflect and define and understand their own values, and learn to articulate their values as effectively as so-called conservatives have been doing for the past 30 years.

MNPundit wrote "Seriously, who are those 12 things news for? The Beltway pundits? DailyKos has been saying this for YEARS." But MNPundit, Lakoff has also been saying these things for years. Moral Politics was published in May 15, 1996, when Markos Moulitsas Zniga was a boy of 14. And, despite the heavy lifting of Lakoff and Markos and many others, these things obviously are news for millions of progressives who continue to believe that if only we argue the issues and if only the media "did its job" and if only blah blah blah, progressives would win. Not only that, even for progressives who "know" these 12 points, it's useful to have a book, or an article, that reminds us of these things and explores them in detail.

cboas wrote, "Maybe one perspective Lakoff is inferring, and liberals should listen to, is: When it comes to campaigning, Republicans think is better to win that to be right. Because once you're in office, then you can do what it is you believe is right. . . ." Never mind whether you meant implying rather than inferring, this is close to one of the points Lakoff makes in Moral Politics: that the highest value of strict-father morality is the preservation and promotion of strict-father morality itself. Because strict strict-father conservatives value strict-father morality so highly, some of them are willing to bend and subordinate every other moral principle, including telling the truth and playing fair, to the higher principle of promoting strict-father morality. This is why there exists in the first place a mockable syndrome IOKIYAR (and no comparable syndrome ending with D). But this does not mean that progressives should elevate the promotion of nurturing-parent morality above all other progressive principles. For example, progressives should not consider stripping 50,000 conservative voters from the voter rolls, as a so-called onservative did in Florida prior to the election of 2000. Telling the truth is a progressive moral strength and not something progressives should abandon for temporary electoral advantage.

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on September 28, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who does fully understand the nature of the Bush administration and voted for Bush is evil.

There are indeed a lot of evil people in the USA aren't there? Apparently evil loves company because they attact a lot of it.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers wrote: "Rank and file conservatives feel a victim status just like rank and file liberals. Long ago they formed into their own tribe. For many years they were beaten down by liberals who treated them like redheaded step children."

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-intentioned comment but I strongly disagree with what I take to be your "both sides are at fault" premise.

So-called "rank and file conservatives" didn't "form into their own tribe" because they were "victimized" or "beaten down by liberals."

They "formed into their own tribe" as the direct result of a very expensive, years-long propaganda campaign funded by right-wing extremist billionaires like Richard Scaife and others, including those who bankrolled Rush Limbaugh's initial foray into talk radio, and funded his program until he developed an audience and attracted commerical sponsors. They continue to pump out a stream of propaganda through Limbaugh and his clones, Rignery publishing, Ann Coulter's books and the books of other copycat bullshit artists, through Fox News, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's newspaper, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, etc.

The whole thrust of this calculated, carefully crafted propaganda campaign was to convince gullible people that "liberals" were the cause of all their problems, and that they were the poor pitiful victims of liberals. Rush Limbaugh and those who followed in his footsteps continue today to hammer the American public with this message, that they are the victims of liberalism and that only Great Conservative Heroes like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush can save them, even when conservatives hold essentially all power not only in government but in the private (i.e. corporate feudalist) domain.

The Cult of Poor Pitiful Conservative Victimhood And Hatred Of Liberals did not arise spontaneously. It is a deliberate creation of ultra-rich right-wing extremists who want to overturn republican democracy in America and replace it with corporate-fedualist neo-fascism. It is virtually identical in form and content to the propaganda campaigns by which the Nazis convinced so many Germans in the 1930s that all their problems were the result of oppression by "Jews". If you read any given selection of 1930s Nazi anti-Semitic propgaganda and substitute the word "liberal" for "Jew", you will have the script that Rush Limbaugh bellows on the radio every day, day after day after day for years, in this country.

My reaction to what I take to be this "both sides are at fault" notion is that it is comparable to saying that the Jews were just as much to blame for what happened in 1930s Germany as were the Nazis.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "There are indeed a lot of evil people in the USA aren't there?"

There are some who are both stupid and evil, such as yourself.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers: Gold star for thoughtful serious commentary. Thank you.

That was pitiful!

Oh woe is me! I've been called names! Boo Hoo! The two sides have been dishing it out snce before these two parties were the two sides and they were dishing much worse.

Your tears are the tears of losers. That's not to disupte the fact you are victims. You are. You are the victims of the idiotic ideologies you've selected and a lack of backbone. You also have a tendency to select weak candidates. Your 3 leading candidates for 2008 are Hillary, Al Gore and Johnny Edwards. That's pathetic.

Rush never promotes victimhood. Rush and all conservatives trash victimhood. We find self-appointed victims to be the most pitiful people on the planet. Grow a spine!

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

rdw

You have made a powerful statement in favor of my argument. And yes Conservatives use their own "victimhood" to maintain their own tribal identity.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 28, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

"they think anyone voting for George Bush was either stupid or evil."

I hate such sweeping generalizations. It just so happens I think they're evil AND stupid.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel on September 28, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

rdw

You have made a powerful statement in favor of my argument. And yes Conservatives use their own "victimhood" to maintain their own tribal identity.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 28, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Rush never promotes victimhood.

What planet have you been hiding on, boy? Or did you miss his phoney whining and wailing about the "liberal persecution" over his hillbilly heroin bust.


Posted by: Mrs. Peel on September 28, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Rush never promotes victimhood.

Except when he's under investigation for a felony. Then he criiiiieees to the ACLU to save him like the little whiny ass titty baby he really is.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Their "Christians are persecuted" meme is all about victimhood - they don't just embrace it, they enshrine it and worship at it's altar. Sheesh.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Except when he's under investigation for a felony. Then he criiiiieees to the ACLU to save him like the little whiny ass titty baby he really is

Except he didn't cry to the ACLU. He did what all fabulously wealthy people do and get lawyered up. And won!

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

And yes Conservatives use their own "victimhood" to maintain their own tribal identity.

Except they don't. We never hide from the fact we're winning. Winners can't be victims.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Their "Christians are persecuted" meme is all about victimhood

Not even a little bit. We love the christian bashing by libs. Especially offset from thier tolerance/fear of islam. We win because we get the religious vote. They don't like sanctiminous liberals. They're our strongest asset.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Winners can't be victims

Not for another five weeks and five days. But perhaps on November 8th a lot of Publicans will wake up wondering why their asses hurt and who took their clothes.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Except he didn't cry to the ACLU. He did what all fabulously wealthy people do and get lawyered up. And won!

So if I'm a law-breaking drug addicted loser, as long as I have money can avoid punishment under the law?

What an excellent system.

Oh, and of course, it also helps to resort to them evil librul lawyers at the ACLU that I trash talk on a daily basis to save my fat pimply ass. After all, it did get me out of serving my country in Vietnam.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush-bootlicking neo-brownshirt rdw wrote: "Rush never promotes victimhood."

You are the most abjectly stupid mental slave of all the profoundly stupid right-wing mental slaves who infest this site with their slavish regurgitation of scripted drivel.

Rush Limbaugh has been telling his ignorant dumbass dittohead listeners like you that they are the poor pitiful victims of powerful liberal elites for years.

That's what so-called "conservatism" in the USA today -- and for at least a couple of decades now -- is all about: whining and moaning about being the poor pitiful victims of liberals. And blacks. And women. And immigrants. And yes, Jews (the most common euphemism for Jews being "Hollywood").

You are the direct spiritual descendant of the 1930s German brownshirt: a stupid ignorant thug whose politics have no content except hating whoever they've been told to blame for their problems. They hated "Jews" and you hate "liberals". Different words, same thing.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

I just happen to be a pro-life Reagan Democrat.

For those of you who aren't fluent in Newspeak, I will provide a translation: "I just happen to be a right-wing Republican. [And I think you're an idiot who will take me seriously.]"

Posted by: chasmrich on September 28, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

I endorse the 12 points with enthusiasm. Politicians need to start talking about their values, and how it leads them to policy. In a way that connects with ordinary voters. They need to look at the big picture. They definitely need to walk away from guilt-based motivation.

In order to do this, extra-governmental channels of communication must be created and fostered. Blogs are one, talk radio is another. There are many more.

Democrats cannot be seen to be conflict-avoidant or poll-driven. That's just "telling us what we want to hear". People are hungry for leaders who can give them the bad news, and remain optimisitic and hopeful. E.g. "We disagree on that, but here's something we can agree on, and we can do something about."

Posted by: Doctor Jay on September 28, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Not for another five weeks and five days

Counting the days are you Charlie Brown? That's lucy holding the ball for you to kick. Go ahead, take a run. Just like in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

And yes, Jews (the most common euphemism for Jews being "Hollywood").


Not quite. The most common euphamism for jews is 'neocon'.

We happen to be fans of Hollywood. Was there a better asset for the GOP in 2004 than Michael Moore? And for great support who about Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Alec Baldwin, Rosie, Barbara Streisand, etc and all of those other intellectual heavyweights?

We are also fans of the MSM. It would be rude of me to give Michael Moore so much credit in 2004 while ignoring the fine efforts of Dan Rather. In fact to be honest, I wonder if Danny Boy was more valuable.

What a great question for you libs. Who did GWB the bigger favor, MM or DR?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK
"Sorry guys, but from now on, I'm going to start deleting all of your posts that I disagree with."

Posted by: Kevin Drum on September 28, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

This supposed post by Kevin could hardly sound less like him. His statement is even put in quotes, for Christ's sake. Kevin could not possibly put his statement in quotes without his head exploding.

You're just making shit up, Thomas1. I'm so surprised I forgot to drop my jaw.

Posted by: frankly0 on September 28, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

I am taking a wait and see approach. Both houses are in play, and people are waking up from their long slumber of complacency. They are realizing that no brats of priveledge are coming home in bodybags. Jenna and not-Jenna certainly are not in the line of fire, now are they? Of course not. Just like their daddy didn't step up when it was his turn.

My faith is not in the Democratic Party - it is rooted in a fervent hope that the American people are not as stupid as the Publicans take them to be.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Rush Limbaugh has been telling his ignorant dumbass dittohead listeners like you that they are the poor pitiful victims of powerful liberal elites for years.

That's simply not true. Rush does make great use of the liberal elites but that's mostly for humor. They're so easy. One cannot be a successful radio show host without being funny and to stay funny you need a steady supply of morons. The elites are perfect.

Did you see Sean Penn in that boat bailing out with a plastic cup? Tell me that wasn't priceless. Obviously Rush needs the elites.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

it is rooted in a fervent hope that the American people are not as stupid as the Publicans take them to be

You've just explained why they control the WH, Senate and House.

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Your position then is that the American people are as stupid as the Publicans take them to be?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 28, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

So, you are saying there are ZERO pro-life, Reagan Democrats left?

No, I'm saying that you aren't any kind of Democrat. You are clearly a Republican. Why bother to deny it? And why assume that we are so witless that we can't see it? Never mind, I really don't care.

Posted by: chasmrich on September 28, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1,

If you were "QUOTING", then why didn't you QUOTE all the other posts?

You're just making shit up.

And, as I said, the content of what you quoted could not sound less like Kevin.

Posted by: frankly0 on September 28, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

OK, Thomas1, you're right about the quotes around the other posts, so my apologies for that.

But, again, nothing could sound less like Kevin, and your unsupported assertion that he wrote what you said is just not believable.

This is his job. He's going to type something like that? Where's the precedent?

Posted by: frankly0 on September 28, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK
Fine, cmdicely -- I went back in my time machine -- here are some of the posts you missed --

So, your claim that obviously you couldn't argue about them was a lie?

And, even if we accept that those are all accurate as to the contents of the deleted posts (except for the misplace quotation marks, which should be around rather than, as you have done it, within the supposedly quoted material), that's still a thin reed to hang an argument on, since, after all, its no more difficult to pretend to be Kevin than to pretend to be anyone else. So if that's your case, I'd have to say its a decidedly weak one.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

In response to:
And yes Conservatives use their own "victimhood" to maintain their own tribal identity.

rdw wrote:
Except they don't. We never hide from the fact we're winning. Winners can't be victims.


That's been the thing that's always astonished me: the conservatives have been winning and yet they still mewl like babies about "liberals."

Posted by: Wonderin on September 28, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Your position then is that the American people are as stupid as the Publicans take them to be?

Conservatives would never make the suggestion. That's a elitists' trait. We run the government because the American people are too smart to trust libs.

Even the Democratic party recognizes that. Why else would Kerry and Clinton and every other serious national politician run away from the term liberal?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

See above, regarding why I do it: "Why keep fighting?"

Obviously no self-respecting Democrat would be fighting to keep you from disclosing your Republican identity. Thus, I infer that you are having some sort of internal struggle over this issue between "good Thomas1" [a Democrat] and "evil Thomas1" [a Republican]. It is quite sad that "evil Thomas1" is clearly winning; but this previously undisclosed schizophrenia does explain a lot! You should have told us earlier.

Posted by: chasmrich on September 28, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

That's been the thing that's always astonished me: the conservatives have been winning and yet they still mewl like babies about "liberals."

Not at all. We smack liberals around for the same reasons we smack the UN, The French, Kofi Annan, socialists, etc. It's fun and it's productive. What was it like for you for your Presidential candidate to deny any connection to you? He refused to be a called a liberal and he barred the term from his entire campaign.

Think maybe the term 'liberal' is viewed as toxic in some quarters?

Posted by: rdw on September 28, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "That's simply not true."

It simply is true. You can't admit it because you are a weak-minded ignorant dupe, and a sad example of the depraved mental degeneracy that results from constant exposure to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fox News, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and the rest of the bought-and-paid-for corporate-feudalist neo-fascist war-profiteer propaganda manchine.

That's why you are unable to do anything but slavishly regurgitate scripted bullshit talking points, and why your so-called "conservative" politics has no actual content other than your hatred of "liberals" and your simpering, whimpering, bootlicking worship of fake, phony, grade-B actor "conservative heroes" like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "Think maybe the term 'liberal' is viewed as toxic in some quarters?"

In the quarters of brain-dead Limbaugh-brainwashed mental slaves like you.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "We smack liberals around for the same reasons we smack the UN, The French, Kofi Annan, socialists, etc. It's fun and it's productive."

This exemplifies what I wrote earlier. The so-called "conservative" politics of neo-brownshirt Republican Fascist Party mental slaves like rdw has absolutely no content except their hatred of "liberals". They are exactly like the 1930s German Nazi brownshirts with their hatred of "Jews". No doubt their were plenty of Nazi brownshirts saying in 1930s Germany that "smacking Jews around" was "fun." rdw is their direct spiritual descendant.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK
And, yes, of course it's a "weak case" because I can't prove anything about DELETED posts!!!!

Deletion has nothing to do with it; your case is weak even assuming the accuracy of your reporting of the contents of the posts. Your accusation against Kevin was unjustified.

Kinda like if an attorney has the proof but can't introduce it into evidence.

Well, except that you don't have any proof, its just like that.

I could post them, as I did, but I certainly had no basis to argue from them.

Only because, even assuing that they are accurately reported as they appeared, they don't justify your claim.


Isn't that what I tried to tell you in the first place?

I don't know, is what you tried to tell me in the first place that you had no rational basis for your accusation?

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie is in full blown psychosis now.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 28, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie is in full blown psychosis now.

No, this is Charlie in full-blown psychosis:

Not at all, you MOTHER-FUCKING ASSHOLE! I'm just not going to be nice about it anymore. Thank God you are going straight to HELL, SecularAnimist!

Posted by: Cheney on March 9, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Good times.

Posted by: trex on September 28, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK
How does QUOTING someone become "no rational basis"?!

Quoting is not a rational basis, its a way of presenting information that you claim to be a rational basis. But, when, for instance, the quote is of someone claiming a particular identity, but making a statement inconsistent with the past behavior of the person they claim to be, in a place where identities are easily and regularly forged, it doesn't provide much basis to believe anything beyond that someone wanted Kevin's position to be seen that way.


My problem was that Kevin deleted the proof.

But, even if it was still in the thread, the post you quote as proof was nothing of the sort. His deleting it is irrelevant.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 28, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

宝贝计划下载 性爱图片 台湾18电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康图片 性教育电影 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情

Posted by: mmf铃声 on September 28, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Speaking of epistemological quandaries -- how do we know the posts were even deleted? I never saw them. How do we know you're not making this whole thing up -- including the posts of Am Hawk and the like that you quoted, let alone Kevin's?

Maybe some people will chime in and say they saw them as well, and corroborate your evidence. But I haven't seen anybody do that.

Not saying you're wrong, btw. Only that you have no proof. And since so much evidence abounds that you regularly torture the truth to an inch of its life (when you're not out-and-out lying about stuff) -- can you really blame people for just flatly. not. believing. you?

Somebody's word and reputation is really all they have in cyberspace. And judicious observers form impressions over time.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Who else can do that?

Cheney?

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

the just-passed torture bill is a perfect example of republican values.
.

Posted by: pluege on September 28, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, as you may note, I commented early here. I saw nothing unusual. Plus the few times I have ever seem Kevin delete, he has posted about it.

Posted by: Keith G on September 28, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Keith G:

Well, to be perfectly fair (which I try to be, even to my opponents), I just did see Kevin delete some Chinese character spam I posted immediately below about an hour ago in the top thread about smocking.

It's gone now. No word (not that one would be necessary in that circumstance) from Kevin.

I'm not disagreeing with your observation at all, Keith. It's likely that Thomas just pulled those "deletions" out of his but, and *very* likely that he made up that Kevin quote.

Just noting that arguing by inference is always problematical.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

I never claimed you were "wrong." I dropped the subject yesterday because I didn't think the posters on a new thread were particularly interested in a baiting question from a dead thread.

I simply can't back up, for myself, whether you are indeed correct that archived threads have their comment threads turned off as a matter of routine at 12 midnight PDT.

Maybe they do normally. I know they don't all the time, because I saw thread comments turned off one day last week in the middle of the afternoon.

But this is an entirely trivial, pointless and annoying issue to keep discussing.

Whatever, Thomas. Have it your way. You were "right," sheesh. Nobody cares.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Alright, Thomas. I just saw Wonderin's comment. Obviously what he quoted came from somewhere that's no longer there.

That's evidence enough for me to say that Kevin deleted some posts.

You won that point fair and square. Hats off to you. I bow my (hatless) head in humble acknowledgment.

*rolling eyes*

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Actually (since this thread is sort of dead), I'd be lying if I said I wasn't sort of curious.

How did you know when that thread would have its comments turned off?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

It's that the whole conversation is the sine qua non of trivial, off-topic and irrelevant to everybody else is where the *rolling eyes* came from.

It's expressing as much exasperation at myself for being so friggin' momentarily bored enough to keep engaging you on it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 28, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

George Lakoff is right about at least have these points. Clinton proves him right every time he is on television, because Clinton is one of the few in the party that gets it.

It's not spin. It's not wonkish policy. It's not program names, or statistics. It's things like:

- We believe that the American middle class deserves a chance. We believe that your children should do better than you did. We think that the American middle class should be getting bigger, not smaller. We believe that mothers and fathers should be able to DECIDE to have a parent at home with the kids in the traditional way, or choose to work in a modern way.

- The Democratic party is the only party in the last 100 years to wage a successful American war. This includes WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. The hard truth is that by concentrating on winning in a sustainable way, and preventing war profiteering, and by always going to war for ethical reasons as the last possible resort, the Democratic party has shown that it can lead the country into war and win every time.

- We believe that no American should have to worry about going bankrupt because of a visit to the emergency room. That nobody in a rich, first world country should have untreated scurvy, or appendicitis, or pneumonia. We believe that by providing health insurance, we encourage more people to start their own businesses, and participate as business owners in our robust, competitive economy.

- We believe that America's economy should be about MAKING things, whether it be cars, software, information, contracts, etc. For the American economy to truly be successful, it must work for ALL Americans. We know that the more successful the American middle class is, the more successful EVERYONE is, from the poorest members to the richest members of our society.

- While we want the rest of the world to also be successful, it should not happen so fast that it hurts Americans, and it should happen on a level playing field, with similar legal, social, and environmental rules to those which the USA believes in and lives by.

- We need to keep Abortion available, safe, and rare. We know that by keeping it legal, we can actually keep it from happening as often, and we save the lives of many would-be mothers in the process.

- We believe that EVERY adult gets to decide who they wish to marry, regardless of race, color, creed, or sex. If you don't agree with us, you are personally free to marry someone of the same race, color, creed, and opposite sex. It's about FREEDOM.

I could go on. How hard is this VALUES stuff? It's easy compared to policy. It's simply so obviously part of our thinking processes that we trip over it.

Posted by: smoof on September 28, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oh this was certianly Kevins problem as well as Broder's "independent" trap.

The Centrist Trap

There is a common belief that there is an ideological "center" -- large group of voters either with a consistent ideology of their own or lined up left to right on the issues or forming a "mainstream," all with the same positions on issues. In fact, the so-called center is actually made up of biconceptuals, people who are conservative in some aspects of life and progressive in others. Voters who self-identify as "conservative" often have significant progressive values in important areas of life. We should address these "partial progressive" biconceptuals through their progressive identities, which are often systematic and extensive.

A common mistaken ideology has convinced many progressives that they must "move to the right" to get more votes. In reality, this is counterproductive. By moving to the right, progressives actually help activate the right's values and give up on their own. In the process, they also alienate their base.

Yes, Kevin - you need to put that one on frig dude.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 28, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

We offer a variety of travel related services, including discount travel online, popular travel guides, cheap alabama car insurance quotes,discount hotels in US, hotel chains, cheap airfare online, and discount car rental.

Posted by: LL on September 28, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

The rightwinger religious evangelical conspiracy trap..

Seems to me that I remember a new religion that Rockefeller was trying to form, a subset of the dieties, Temenos books or something,.UN Earth Charter, I think.

The Ark, Charter, and Temenos Books were placed on display at the UN summit site and then put to work building the new global ethic. Day after day, UN acolytes carried the sacred objects from school to school, where tens of thousands of children already had been prepped with Earth Charter propaganda. Public ceremonies with mayors and celebrities augmented the school events.

The summit�s opening day featured a four-hour symposium entitled, "Educating for Sustainable Living with the Earth Charter." Steven Rockefeller, a religion professor and scion of the fabulously wealthy banking family that donated the land for the UN headquarters in New York, was preeminent among the presenters. Professor Rockefeller is also chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Earth Charter International Drafting Committee. According to Rockefeller, the way to go about "building peace on earth" is through the "inclusive, integrated and spiritual approach" of the Earth Charter.

The wingnuts think the 'leftists' are in on some kind of socialist 'conspiracy', I am not, nor do I think, any here really know much or anything about 'Temenos Books' or are part of some vast left wing 'conspiracy'..=)

http://www.mettaearth.org/articles.php4
or here
http://www.orionsociety.org/pages/oa/02-3oa/ArkOfHope.html

As people may or may not know Orion is not some Alien race,lol, PI COT ORION is what Jesus spoke.

In the first mention of the heavenly bodies, the purpose of the Creator is clearly stated. Genesis 1:14-19 reveals the fact that they were created, not only "to divide the day from the night, and to give light upon the earth"; but, they were set "for SIGNS, and for SEASONS, and for days and years".
PISCES. Egyptian name in the Zodiac or Denerah = Pi-cot Orion or Pisces Hori = the fishes (that is to say, swarms or multitudes) of Him Who cometh. Hebrew Dagim, the fishes (Genesis 48:16). Syriac name, Nuno, Son of Nun {jesus}...etc

There you go,no space aliens and no left wing conspiracy, LMAO!!!

Posted by: Evangelical Trap on September 29, 2006 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK

That's me!

Posted by: PI COT ORION on September 29, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly